Bombay HC refuses divorce plea of man who claimed wife did not cook well or offer water

The husband, stated in his petition that he got married on February 13, 2005. He lived with his wife and his parents. According to the petition, the man said his wife had “negative attitude” towards his parents and she would also abuse, insult and threaten them. He alleged that his wife, a teacher, used to wake up late and when he and his parents tried to wake her up early, she used to abuse them. The petition states that after returning home from work, after 6pm, she would go to sleep for a couple of hours and only after 8.30 pm, she would cook. “… the food cooked by her was neither tasty nor sufficient and when he (husband) used to return home after many hours of hard work, the Respondent (wife) hardly used to spend quality time with him. She never used to offer him a glass of water on his returning home,” the petition states.

The husband then filed for divorce in 2012. He appealed in the High Court after the family court refused to grant him divorce. According to wife, she had never treated her husband or his parents with disrespect. She used to leave their house early in the morning after preparing tiffin for herself and husband, after cooking food for all the family members. The wife stated that “she was burdened with considerable workload in her school and used to return home at around 5:30 to 6pm. On her way back, she used to buy vegetables. After coming home, she used to prepare tea for herself and in-laws and then used to cook food for everybody.”

A bench of Justice K K Tated and Justice Sarang Kotwal, upholding the Family Court order, observed, “…the Respondent (wife) herself was a working woman. In addition to attending her job, she was admittedly cooking in the morning as well as in the evening. It is obvious that she herself used to get tired and still she was cooking for the family and yet was doing other household work.” Stating that the allegations made by the husband will not amount to cruelty, the bench passed an order, “Thus, taking overall view of the matter, we do not find any merit in the appeal.”